of idea and style a la Time may be foundnin its piece on South Dakota’s governornWiUiam Janklow, whom Time obviouslyndislikes because he is a conservativenRepublican and is effectively bringingnprosperity to his state in keeping withnconservative and Republican precepts.nSo here’s how it goes:nQuiet discretion is not his strong suitnEarlier this year the Governor filed twonlibel suits against publishers becausenthey had repeated an unproven allegationnthat Janklow raped an Indian teenagernin 1967.nIt’s hard to understand Time’s peevishngrudge. What are they ranting gainst?nThat Gov. Janklow, innocent as he maynbe, tries to defend himself from thenpoisonous mendacity of the press, fornwhom Time is a spiritual leader? DonTime’s editors really believe that discretionnis meek acknowledgment of misdeedsnone did not commit? Do they evernconsult their Webster’s? DnEpistemologicalnChutzpahnOne Lawrence Barrett—Timenmagazine’s senior editor who blew thenwhistle on Carter’s purloined briefingnpapers in his book on Reagan and whomnParade, the lowbrow Sunday gossipnmagazine, calls “distinguished,” “knowledgeable,”nand “insightful”—bares hisnmental acumen for the aforementionednsheet in an interview about the President:n[He is] often too rigid for his own goodnand the country’s good…nHow does Mr. Barrett know so objectivelynand unequivocally what is then”country’s good”? The mightiest of intellectsnamong scholars, statesmen, andnpoliticians have endless doubts aboutntheir knowledge of such an abstruse andncomplex matter, and they deeply differnon it. For Mr. Barrett there are no mysteriesninvolved; he has an answer withnthe snap of his fingers. If we wanted ton50inChronicles of Caltttrenpass judgments by snapping out readyto-wearnanswers, we would have saidnthat what Mr. Barrett knows and putsninto books or articles is pure trash. Isnthis correct?nWhich, in turn, brings us to what beyondnany reasonable doubt is trash, weeklyndisseminated by one Cheryl Lavin ofnthe Chicago Tribune Sunday Magazine.nMs. Lavin interviews celebrities andnThe Signification of SilencenThe following letter, a rejoinder, wasnsent on June 2 to the New York Times bynMr. Leopold Tyrmand who, iji his role asnthe Secretary of the Executive C^ouncil ofnThe Ingersoll Prizes, took exception to anpiece written by Russell Baker, the Times’ncoveted columnist:nTo the Editor:nRussell Baker’s feuilleton of Mayn25 (“And His Mouth So Prim”) had antone of warmhearted, if slightlynobfiiscated, grievance. It berated usnfor having adopted T. S. Eliot as patronnsaint of The Ingersoll Prize fornLiterature. Whether or not Eliot wasnconvincingly conservative enough tonserve us properly, or we are too suspiciouslynconservative to invoke hisnname, remains unclear in Mr. Baker’snreasoning.nEliot’s relation with Orwell wasngiven as proof of his defective conser’atism.nTrue, as an editor at Fabern& Faber in London, Eliot did turnndown the manuscript oiAnimal Fannnin 1944. So did about 14 other Englishnpublishers. Mr. Baker wrote that Eliotn”used his influence to prevent publication.”nThis seems to me rather ancelebration of transient gossip: in anletter to Eliot Qune 28,1944 ) Orwellndistinctiy pointed out that the decisionnof pubhstang Animal Farm by “Messrs.nFaber & Faber” may not have restednwith Eliot alone. VChat Orwell thoughtnabout Eliot was best specified in ThenListener (March 19,1942): He “brou^tnnndemicelebrities. Not long ago she featurednone Nora Harlow, a journalist specializingnin sex therapy. Her includednpicture reveals Ms. Harlow as a young,nwholesome-looking woman with an extraordinarynamount of idiocy emanatingnfrom her eyes. Ms. Lavin aslffi a questionnof stupendous stupidity:nLack of desire—isn’t that a new sexnback the sense of histor>’ and the possibilitynof tragedy” to English literature.nI carmot imagine a more succinctnand profound acknowledgment ofnEliot’s conservatism and importance.nOur ideological spiu”iousness isnimplied by Mr. Baker with the help ofnphrases taken out of context fromnour statement of purpose and weldedntogether in an implausible manner.nYet, despite Mr. Baker’s disapproval,nwe are quite able to demonstrate thatnmodern liberalism, its humanitariannand pluralistic heritage notwithstanding,nhas evolved some exclusionarynattitudes and practices in culture. It isnconservatives who seem today to benthe defenders of the Western conceptnof freedom—which is supposed tonconfer stricdy equal rights on everynopinion, persuasion, denomination,nand conviction.nLeopold TyrmandnSecretary of the Executive CommitteenITie Ingersoll PrizesnThe letter never appeared. Ihis Lsnrather curious, coasidering the dependentnclause in its final sentence, which takes anmore comprehensive, open-armed appnyachnto equality of opinion than Chroniclesndoes, but which seems to sum upnthe sentiments espoused by the New YorknTimes on both its news and opinion pages.nPerhaps the nonappearance of the letternis a silent signifier of the Times’ attitudentoward The Ingersoll Prizes, one that indicatesnthat things are not as they seem. Dn